text:
This is part two in the tragedy of postponing, and it comes from Acts 24. It's really the story of Felix; it starts out as the trial of Paul before Felix, and it ends up as the trial of Felix before Paul. In Acts 24, we have a very graphic illustration of the tragedy of postponing a decision about Christ. In Acts 24:24, we read these words, "And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, 'Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.'"
You know, as far as the Bible is concerned, there never was a convenient season. There was a group of people in Acts 17, Athenians. Paul had spoken to them on the Areopagus, Mars Hill. The Bible says, in Acts 17:32, "When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked and others said, 'We will hear thee again concerning this'." As far as we know, there never was an 'again'. The tragedy of hopeless procrastination.
Jesus records for us a most interesting series of comments on discipleship in Luke 9:57. Jesus, in this particular portion, is talking about discipleship. Three would-be disciples appear on the scene, none of whom follow the Lord. All of them wipe out before they ever get started. Verse 57 begins, "It came to pass, as they went on the way, a certain man said to him, 'Lord, I will follow you wherever you go.'" Sounds good. I mean, it couldn't be much better. There aren't even any conditions - I will - from his standpoint. Or circumstances - wherever.
"Jesus said to him, 'Foxes have holes, birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head'." Why did He say that? The implication is because the man came with a materialistic motive. "Lord, I'll go wherever You're going to go. I'll follow You." The man, undoubtedly, realized or at least hoped that Jesus was the King, the Messiah. He had a Judas-problem; he wanted to get in on it from the standpoint of ambition. "I'll stay with You wherever You go," and in the back of his mind he was thinking, "That's the way I'll get to the top." Jesus said, "Let Me just tell you something. You won't be as well of as the foxes or birds if you follow Me. I have nothing of worldly goods." The man never followed. He bombed out on the basis of materialistic motive.
Look at the next man. Here, the man doesn't volunteer to follow, he is invited by the Lord to follow. He says, "Follow Me." It's sort of like the calling of the apostles. But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." You'd say well, "Please, sir, please. For goodness sake, go do that. To have a dead body lying around stinking in the house is ridiculous. Go." Well, the point is, the father wasn't even dead yet. What he was saying was, "Yes, I'll follow You as soon as I get my inheritance." What was the implication? Lack of faith. "I'm not about to start on a vagabond thing, floating around, preaching the kingdom without any money to support myself." Lack of faith.
The first guy had a materialistic motive; the second guy had a materialistic motive of a sort, he didn't believe that God could supply his needs. Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their dead." In other words, let the spiritually dead take care of the physically dead. You go and preach the Kingdom of God, and you know, the promise of the Lord is that if you seek the Kingdom of God, all the things will be added to you. The man had a motive, and it was really materialistic and he had a lack of faith.
Look at the third one. Another said, "Lord, I will follow You." That sounds good. "But let me first," that's it. "Let me first go and bid them farewell who are home at my house. I want to go home and say goodbye to everyone, get everything fixed up and in order." Jesus said, "No man, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God." That's procrastination. Materialistic motive, lack of faith, and the third guy bombed out because of postponement.
A man who postpones isn't fit, but there are a lot of people who do that. There are a lot of people who say, "Someday I'm going to give my life to Christ. Someday I'm going to serve the Lord. Someday I'm going to receive Christ as my Savior, but not now." That's very, very dangerous. The only people who do that are very, very careless people. They're gambling with their lives.
This week, I was reading an old, old book, almost a classical book, about a man who was going from Europe to America. In order to transport his fortune, he reduced all of his fortune to a huge diamond which he bought from some African mine. It was worth an immense amount of money. He happened to be demonstrating it to someone on the ship when the ship lurched and it dropped into the ocean. Foolish man! Foolish! But no more foolish than the man who postpones the ultimate destiny of his own soul. Postponement.
Careless people postpone for two reasons. They are careless firstly because their constant rejection may harden their hearts. You see, the more you resist Christ, the harder you become and the easier it becomes to resist the next time. We are creatures of habit. That's why Hebrews 3:7 says what it says. I'm not going to go into all the explanation of all the detail, but just to pull off the basic interpretation of the passage so you'll see. Listen to the words of the Holy Spirit. Here again is a great proof of the Old Testament's inspiration, because he's quoting from the Old Testament writer, and yet says the Holy Spirit said it.
"Wherefore as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation in the day of trial in the wilderness, when your fathers put Me to the test, proved Me, and saw My works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved of that generation, and said, "They do always err in their heart and they have not known My ways." So I swore in My wrath, "They shall not enter into My rest." God says, "Don't be like Israel, who kept hardening and hardening in the wilderness, until they finally were not allowed to enter the Promised Land. That's what happened, wasn't it? They all died in the wilderness. Why? Because they hardened against God and forfeited rest, the rest of the Promised Land.
I believe the Promised Land represents salvation. They forfeited it. The illustration here is warning, "Don't do what they did." He writes, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. Exhort each other while it is today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." The more you reject and the more you put it off, the harder you get, and sin deceives you into rationalizing that postponement.
Verse 15. "While it is called today, if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." In chapter 6 of Hebrews, he says, "Don't come all the way to faith, tasting the heavenly gift, partaking of the powers of the world to come, all of that, and fall away, or you'll never be able to be renewed again to repentance." Tragic story.
This is what happens when a man rejects and rejects and rejects. Even though he has good intentions of someday, someday, someday. That someday begins to fade. Luke 13:24 is a most interesting passage. It says this. "Strive to enter in at the narrow gate." The narrow gate is the way of salvation, isn't it? "For many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able." You know, there are going to be people who seek and will not be able. Few will be saved, verse 23 says. I don't know how people can equate that with the doctrine of universalism.
Verse 25. "When once the master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I know you not from where you are.'" There are an awful lot of people who will say, "I wanted in and I planned to get in, and I wanted to come that way," but it's going to be too late. The door will be shut; they will be like the people who lived in Noah's time. It will be raining and they will be knocking on the ark.
Postponement is a foolish thing, because your own heart can become hard. Secondly, as I've just pointed out, God stops calling after a certain point. Read it. In the pre-Noah time, God said, "My Spirit will not always strive with man." Only a fool postpones when his soul is at stake; he is a bigger fool than a man who throws his fortune up in the air in a diamond and drops it into the ocean.
We meet such a man in Acts 24. His name is Felix. Felix is a fool. He was a procurator of Judea from A.D. 52-59. It fell his lot to deal with Paul, the apostle, even as it had fallen the lot of a previous procurator by the name of Pilate to deal with Jesus Christ. Now in this passage, we find Paul and Felix confronting each other in a hearing, a form of a trial. As we said before, there are three ways you can look at this passage. You can look at it from the viewpoint of Paul, the history of the record of what happens to Paul. You can look at it from the viewpoint of God, how God is working in this situation. You can also look at it from the viewpoint of Felix, the tragedy that occurs in his life. We've been looking at it from Paul's viewpoint and as we conclude our study, we'll look at it from the viewpoint of God and Felix. We'll have to have that conclusion next week.
The Jewish leaders had desired to kill Paul. Paul represented, to them, a very serious threat and the same threat that Jesus represented; that is, he was winning a great following. The Jewish leaders had one great fear, and that was that they would lose their authority, their power, their prestige and position in the eyes of the people. So anyone who came along and won a great following of the people was really a threat. Paul had had tremendous success in winning Jews to Christ, and of course, the leaders began to be fearful, so they set about to get rid of him.
We've just seen in the previous verses that in Jerusalem, they had tried to kill him three times in a riotous situation, and once they had tried to kill him with a plotted ambush. After those four attempts, the Romans had finally decided to get Paul out of town to save his life because Paul, after all, was a Roman citizen and they had to protect him. Secondly, he had committed no crime. So the Romans hustled him down to Caesarea and put him right there in the
praitorion, the seat of the Roman government being in Caesarea, so Paul is there in a sort of protective custody.
The accusers of the Jews are sent to Caesarea to bring the case before Felix there, in order to get a more fair trial than ever would be possible in the city of Jerusalem, if in fact they could even keep him alive in the city of Jerusalem. So the whole thing shifts; the plot to kill Paul moves to Caesarea, and these accusers come down, attempting to get Paul executed for crimes of which they will accuse him.
As the scene opens in chapter 24, the trial takes place. It has three parts like any trial: the prosecution, the defense, and the verdict or judgment. We saw last time the prosecution, and I'll just read through the first few verses to set your mind back in that context. Paul has been in Caesarea for five days, waiting for his accusers to arrive. Finally, his accusers get there.
Verse 1. "And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders [that is, representatives of the Sanhedrin], and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul." This is their hired lawyer, and his job was to inform Felix as to what Paul had done. He was the accuser, the voice.
"And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying," now he begins his accusation by flattery; he really butters up the situation. He says to Felix, "Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy provision, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness." This was a bunch of balderdash; he didn't believe a word of it. He said, "You've brought great peace and done so many worthy deeds," and I told you last week that we try in vain to find one thing in history that he ever did that amounted to anything. When he says, "We accept it always, in all places, with all thankfulness," that's just a gross over-exaggeration; they hated and despised Felix, and Felix knew it.
"Notwithstanding," he says, "I don't want to be further tedious unto you by reciting how wonderful you are, so I'll just ask you to give us a few minutes of your precious time to listen to our words."
Now here's their case. "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, a nuisance, a troublesome character." Here are the three accusations, remember them? One, sedition. "A mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world." In other words, he is a terrible threat to the security of Rome because he leads the Jews in insurrection. "He is treasonous," they are really trying to get the charge against him of being a political criminal. Sedition - he leads the Jews to riot against Rome.
The second thing is sectarianism; they accuse him of being a heretic. "And he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." He is the leader of a well-known heresy. The Nazarenes really were Christians; the name was given as a slur, a mocking name. The reason they called them that was because that's what they had called Jesus, the Nazarene. When they said 'Jesus of Nazareth' it wasn't just a geographical designation, it was a slur, a slam, sarcasm. When they put on the cross 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews' that was a joke, supposed to be funny, not serious. It was the ultimate mockery. "Would you believe? The King of the Jews came from Nazareth? Ha ha! Nothing ever came from that place."
So when they called Christians 'Nazarenes' that was a slur, as if they were demeaned, ignorant, stupid, uneducated, illiterates. The sect of the Nazarenes was identified with Jesus, so he says, "This man is a ringleader of a heresy, a well-known Messianic heresy." This implied, too, that it had certain political overtones, because many of the Messianic offshoots of Judaism were definite problems to Rome, they were militant, some of them. So they accused him of sectarianism.
Thirdly, they accused him of sacrilege. "Who also has gone about to profane the temple." He went to profane, or desecrate, the temple. There were territories in the temple forbidden to Gentiles, and they had accused Paul of bringing a Gentile into the place. He hadn't done it, of course, it was a lie like the rest of them. Then they said, "Whom we took and would have judged according to our law," but of course, that was a lie. They wanted to kill him in a riot.
"Then the chief captain, Lysias, came and with great violence, took him away out of our hands." He didn't take him away because he wanted to do violence to him, he took him away because they were trying to kill him. "And he commanded his accusers to come to you. He sent us all the way down here with our case. So if you'll just examine Lysias," verse 8 says, "He'll tell you that what we say is true." Then they brought their witnesses in verse 9, put them on the stand, and they all said, "That's right, he did that. We all say he did that." So they had a prosecution from their lawyer and witnesses to agree to it. That's the prosecution.
Incidentally, it's all lies, every bit of it. But that's to be expected, isn't it? I told you last week that if you live a godly life in the face of an ungodly world, you're going to suffer. That's part of it. All that live godly in the present age are going to suffer persecution. You know, the marvelous thing is that Paul suffered this, and he could stand up there and say, "Friends, I am blameless." That's what God wants. Mark this, He wants Christians to be called before the tribunal of the world. Yes He does. He wants us to be on trial for our faith and He wants the verdict to be, "Not guilty, they are are blameless," so that they have to persecute you for righteousness' sake. If you're going to get it, get it because you're holy, not because you deserve it. Acts 24:1-9 is the prosecution.
Now let's look at the defense, and watch how Paul defends himself. He does it calmly, courteously, and categorically. One, two, three; against sedition, against sectarianism, and against sacrilege, he defends himself. Verse 10. "Then Paul, after the governor had beckoned to him to speak, answered." Felix said, "Alright, it's your turn, Paul." I want you to notice that Paul doesn't have a lawyer; he didn't have any smooth-tongued, oily character who knew his way in and out of Roman law and Roman courts. You say, "Too bad." No, not too bad. He had someone better than a lawyer, a human lawyer.
When Jesus was leaving the earth and He told His disciples, in the Gospel of John, that He was going to go, He said, "I'm going to go away, but I will send to you another Comforter." The word 'comforter' is from parakletos and it means 'one called alongside', someone called alongside to help, called alongside to assist. It could be translated 'a lawyer for the defense'. He didn't have a human lawyer, but he had the parakletos. He had the divine lawyer for the defense carrying out his case.
I want you to notice something exciting, that every word he said to Felix was the word of the Holy Spirit. It's all recorded here in the Bible; it was inspired. So it was Paul talking, but it was the Holy Spirit moving through him. So the defense for Paul that day was Paul's and the Spirit's as well. He doesn't need a human lawyer; he can handle himself in the energy of the Spirit.
He says this, "For as much as I know that thou has been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself." He says, "Felix, I know you've been around long enough to judge fairly in the case, so I'm anxious to answer. Cheerfully do I answer for myself." Is that flattery? No.
Now, people have accused Paul of flattery. They say, "Paul is sort of buttering him up." No, he's not at all. There is no flattery there at all. Paul says this, "Felix, you have been a judge long enough around here to make a fair evaluation, so I am glad to give my case." That's all he said, and it was true. Felix had been governor in that area for five years. Prior to that, he was under Cumanus, who was the governor of Samaria, and he was under him for four years. So for at least nine years, he was acquainted with Jewish affairs.
Now, one very important thing to notice is that in any judgment in regard to Jewish affairs, you would have to know Jewish custom. It is unique, it is so different, that a man would have had to live within the culture to be able to evaluate the actual tensions that were going on. Paul is, in effect, saying, "Felix, I know that you have been around long enough to know that this is a theological problem, and to know the real hassle that is behind this, and I am glad to give my defense, because I know that you know that." There is no flattery here.
Let me hasten to add this. Flattery, for a Christian, is unacceptable at all times. Did you get that? There is no place in a Christian's life for flattery at all, anytime, anyplace. Off the cuff, the simplest definition I could think of is that flattery is when you do or say something to someone that is beyond the truth to elicit something for yourself. It's when you butter them up to get what you want. You don't flatter the people below you, you flatter the people above you - the people who can give you something or spare you some pain.
You know, when you hear Tertullus say, "Oh, most wonderful Felix, oh, most noble, oh," you just say, "Blech!" It's not true; he knew it, everybody knew it, Felix knew it. But flattery is a very common thing; you do that to get what you want. You know something? I'm sad to say that it works. It is absolutely unacceptable to the Christian. Why do I say that? Because Proverbs 26:28 says, "A flattering mouth works ruin," and Psalm 12:3 says, "The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips." Now, if you'd like to hang on to your mouth--
It's that serious. You say, "What's wrong with flattery?" Flattery is not the truth. Flattery is a calculated misrepresentation to gain something for yourself; it is mass self-indulgence and selfishness, it is sin. You know, that's a temptation. People say, "Oh, if you want to get anything in life, you've got to go that route." No.
There are people who would say, "In your church, you find someone who has a lot of money. You need to build that new building? Go to that person who has a lot of money and boy, get close to them, butter them up, and you'll get their money." If you're waiting for me to do that, friends, it isn't going to happen. I don't want your money because I flattered you for it; I want your money not at all, in fact. I'm not interested in it. I'm just interested in being the kind of Christian I ought to be and you being the kind of Christian you ought to be and you doing what God wants you to do with everything else in your life and your money, and me doing what God wants me to do and we'll see what happens. But I don't do certain things to get certain things from you.
I'm sure some of you have said to yourselves, "The way you preach, always belting us around, it's pretty obvious you don't want anything." Well, I just want you to be conformed to the image of Christ. I try not to belt you around, I try to lovingly admonish you. But there is no place for flattery. That goes on all the time, even in Christian circles, believe me. Believe me. I know. It happens even to me, and I don't believe it when it happens. I know me. And if I start to believe it, my wife helps me out.
So he is not flattering Felix. What he's saying is simply, "Felix, you've been around long enough to make a proper judgment, so I will cheerfully go ahead with my defense." Now, I would say that there is a little reverse psychology in that because now, Felix is really on the spot. Paul has said, "You should be able to make a fair judgment, Felix, you've been around long enough." Did you ever notice how Paul can always somehow get his thumb on top of everybody? Now, Felix is not only pressured by the case, he's pressured by the fact that Paul knows he's been around long enough to make a responsible judgment. Paul has such boldness.
So Paul replies, first of all, to the charge of sedition. He starts and goes categorically through the three. First of all, he replies to the charge of sedition in verses 11-13. Now, this is the charge that he was a political criminal. Notice what he says. "Because thou mayest understand that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship." He says, "Felix, you know that I've only been around here twelve days." Acts 24:1 says that five of those had been spent in Caesarea. So the maximum possible time he had spent in Jerusalem was seven days. Now Paul, in effect, is saying, "I haven't had time to start a riot. I haven't had time to get a revolution off the ground. There is no way." And that's right.
In fact, if you go back to chapter 21, you can find out what he spent those seven days doing. Acts 21:23, he arrived in Jerusalem. James and the other believers who were there, the other Christians, were very concerned about Paul because they had heard word that he had become anti-Semitic. They heard he had become anti-Jewish, that his Christianity had gone amok and he was against all the customs and traditions of the Jews. Paul said, "That's not so."
So the elders of the church in Jerusalem said, "You'd better prove that. Here are four guys who are going to take a Nazarite vow." A Nazarite vow was simply an outward form expressing consecration in the heart. It happened to be a Jewish form; it wasn't evil, it was just there, just a custom. Paul said, "Fine. I'll go along and do the same thing they're doing in form, and then everyone will see that I'm not against these customs." So that's what happens in verses 23-27. Verse 26 says, "Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself with them, entered the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification." So they went into the temple for this period of purification.
Verse 27. "And when the seven days were almost ended," imagine! Most of those seven days he was there, he was in the temple. So he spent seven days in there, carrying out a vow, five days in Caesarea; they're accusing him of starting a riot. He says, "Felix, you must understand that I went to Jerusalem to worship, and it's only been 12 days, and there has been no time for any kind of rebellion." That's a pretty good argument, wouldn't you say?
He purposely says this at the end of verse 11, "I went up to Jerusalem to worship, not to desecrate. Not to start a riot, not to start a revolution, not to profane the temple, just to worship." He was carrying out the worship act of the Nazarite vow, which signified consecration to the Jew. That's what he was doing the whole time; he hadn't done anything wrong.
Verse 12. "And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people," which literally means, in the Greek, 'collecting a crowd' for any purpose - either to preach to them or to riot. "Not in the synagogue, not in the temple, not in any place in the whole city. I haven't done anything! There is nothing with which they can accuse me."
In Acts 25:8, he has to give another defense before Festus, and we'll get to that in a few weeks. He says to Festus, "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar have I offended in anything at all. I haven't done anything, nothing!"
In Acts 28:17, he gives another defense of himself. "It came to pass, after three days, Paul called the chief of the Jews together at Rome, and when they were come together, he said to them, 'Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner.'" He continues clear out to the end of the book, saying, "I've never done anything wrong!" You say, "That's easy for him to say. He's just trying to get out of it." No, because he also says repeatedly, "I stand before God with a clear conscience." No, he didn't do anything.
What is it that he denies? He says, "I haven't been in the temple disputing." This is the word for reasoning or arguing, the word that appears so many times elsewhere in the New Testament, in the book of Acts. Do you know that almost everywhere he went, he disputed, except Jerusalem? So the Lord protected him. He didn't dispute. He says, "I have not had public dialog in the temple, I did not have any argument in the temple." He had done it everywhere else, but he didn't do it there.
You say, "Why didn't he do it there?" Man, he was sensitive to the situation. I mean, he knew that it was a powder keg. Not only that, did you know that he had been relieved of the responsibility of evangelism to the city of Jerusalem? He felt no great burden to evangelize there. I think in his heart he did, but not in terms of actually doing it. I'm sure he cared for the people, his heart was broken over Israel, but he felt that he did not have the personal responsibility of ministry there.
Look what he said. "Neither did I raise up the people or collect a crowd." That's something else he had done in every other city he had been in. Everywhere he went, it says he reasoned, doesn't it? In Acts it says, "He reasoned out of the Scriptures." Or the people gathered and he preached. That happened everywhere but Jerusalem. When he got to Jerusalem, it was time for him to conciliate the Jewish Christians, time for him to cease confrontation. You ask, "Why would he feel that way? Why would he not feel responsible? Why would he sense the volatility of it and explosiveness of it and then back off? Was he afraid?" No, fear was never his motive. Why would he hesitate and stand back?
Listen to Acts 22:17. "It came to pass that when I was come again to Jerusalem," this is referring to an earlier time in his life, "While I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance." He went to another level of consciousness where God communicated. "I saw Him saying unto me, 'Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning Me.'" The Lord Jesus told Paul that Jerusalem was not going to receive his testimony, that he had not the responsibility of ministry there.
"And I said, 'Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on Thee, and when the blood of Thy martyr Stephen was shed, I was standing by, consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.'" In other words, wouldn't this be a great place for me to do it, Lord? They would see the transformation. "And He said unto me, 'Get out of here, depart. For I will send thee far from here, unto the Gentiles.'" You know, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, by direct revelation to Paul, said he was not responsible for the ministry in Jerusalem.
So you see, when he comes to Jerusalem, his only goal is to fellowship with the Christians. He goes to the temple to carry out the vow so that the Jewish Christians who are still carrying out Jewish custom will not think that he's anti-Semitic. He has no goal in mind of the propagation of the Gospel to win everyone to Christ.
You'll notice that in his defenses, he never gets into the details of the Gospel. In the earlier defense before the mob, although he certainly implied all the truth that was there, he did not specifically preach the Gospel, nor did he specifically preach the Gospel in the Sanhedrin. The Lord did not have that particular ministry for him. In addition to that, there were already tens of thousands of Jewish Christians there and evangelism, for the most part, in the city of Jerusalem, was a one-to-one thing. They were winning others. So Paul did not sense this tremendous drive for confrontation that he sensed in other places, so he had done none of these things. He hadn't raised up a crowd anywhere: not in the temple, not in the synagogue, not in the city.
In verse 13, he pulls the props out from under their argument altogether. "Neither can they prove the things of which they now accuse me." Now, if you don't have any proof, you don't have a case. That is it. That's out of court, right? Just throw it out. They can't prove anything. So he denies the charges and makes clear the fact that they can't prove them. That takes care of sedition. He has done nothing treasonous.
The second thing they accused him of was sectarianism; they said he was a heretic. This is fantastic. Here, he has to defend himself against being a heretic. He can't deny his Christianity, but he also wants to make sure he denies their charge. So what he does here is says, "I am not a heretic," while at the same time saying, "I am a Christian." There is only one way to do that: he makes all of his accusers heretics. He says, "I am the only real one here. They're all the false ones." You can imagine how that went over.
Look at verses 14-16. "This I confess. I have to admit this, Felix. That after the Way," that is a proper name. The Way is the title of Christianity. The unsaved people used to slur the Christians by calling them 'Nazarenes' or slur them by calling them 'Christians' which meant 'little Christs.' But Christians called themselves members of The Way. You say, "Where did they get that name?" It's pretty obvious, there is no other way. Jesus said, "I am the way." Peter preached, "There is no other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Peter even uses it in II Peter 2:2. He says, "False teachers, by their pernicious ways, cause the way of truth to be evil spoken of." So this was a title for Christianity used by Christians: the Way.
He says, "I confess to you that after the Way which they call heresy, so worshiped I the God of my fathers, believing all things written in the Law and in the Prophets and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust." You can see the High Priest saying, "Yuck! Here we go again on the resurrection." Because the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, right? That's what started the fight in the Sanhedrin.
So you know what Paul says? "I would just like to say that it is true that I am a believer in the Way and consequently, I truly worship my God; I believe all of His revelation, including the part about resurrection." As if to say, "Take that!" Who are the real heretics? The high priests, who have ceased worshiping God, because there is only one way to God. Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me."
"Who have ceased believing all the Law and the Prophets," because if you believe all the Law and the Prophets, you have to believe in Christ, because all the Law and the Prophets talked about was Christ. "And who have ceased believing in the great hope of Israel, the hope of a resurrection." They're the heretics! It is a pretty strong argument.
They had charged Paul with being a religious heretic, they had charged him with belonging to a subversive, extreme offshoot of Judaism. Paul denies it, while at the same time he affirms that he is a Christian. He says that Christianity is true Judaism, and Judaism without Christianity is as pagan as worship of a totem pole. That's true. Those are the heretics. They're heretics because they don't worship the true God, because you can't worship Him except through His Messiah. They don't believe the Scriptures, because if they believed the Scriptures, they'd worship the Messiah. Add to that they don't even believe in the hope of Israel, which is the resurrection. That's the implication. He doesn't bother to explain it any more than that, because Felix knows. Felix knows Christianity and he knows the dialogue between Christians and Jews; he understands the conflict.
How do we know that? Verse 22. "Felix, having a more perfect knowledge of that way." He knew more than Paul said. Paul knew that he did; he'd been around nine years. Christians were everywhere. In fact, the city of Caesarea was loaded with them, and one of the most vocal of them was Philip the Evangelist who lived there. He knew. So Paul says, "I'm a Christian and I'm the only true worshiper of God standing here. These are the heretics."
He says, "So worship I the God of my fathers." That was the historic title for the God of Israel. What is God called? "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The God of my fathers. He says, "I still worship the God of Israel, I still worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I have not forsaken God." Friends, that is a great truth for a Jewish Christian to make known, that you haven't forsaken the worship of God. You are the only true worshiper when you come to Him through Messiah; there is no other way.
I think that many people think that when a Jew becomes a Christian, all of a sudden they have ceased worshiping God. No! The God of Israel is only knowable through His Son. So you might remind your family and friends that you worship the God of their fathers, of your fathers if you're Jewish. Becoming a Christian is not forsaking the God of Israel, it's coming to Him the only way: through Christ. Paul was a completed Jew. That's not a very popular term today, but it's a good one, because a Jew can only become all that a Jew is to be when he is complete in Christ.
You could really blow a hole in all the ethnic things that are happening. People are going around talking about their Jewishness, but they ought to hear Paul preach in Romans 2:28. "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly; he is a Jew who is one inwardly. His circumcision is not of the flesh but it is of the heart." The only true Jews in the world are Christian ones, did you know that? The only true Jews in the world are Christian Jews. The rest are apostate. The true Jew is the one who continues to worship and obey the true God. The only way to the true God is through Messiah.
In fact, Paul said this in I Corinthians 16:22. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed." That's the only way. In Romans 9, Paul says, in effect, the same thing. "All Israel is not Israel." Paul is saying, "I'm the only true Jew here! I'm the only one who has come to the Messiah." In addition, he says, "I believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets."
Do you want to know what his view of Old Testament inspiration was? There it is. You think he believed the Old Testament was inspired? He believed every bit of it. You know what he's implying? That they don't. He was right. You know why? If you believe the Old Testament law and the prophets, you have to believe in Christ.
You know what has happened today with most Jews? They rejected Christ, so you know what they have to do to reject Christ and be comfortable? They have to also reject the Old Testament. That's why today, most Jews don't believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament. They've explained it all away. The only thing they hang on to is the Judaistic ethic. But you cannot study the Old Testament very long and really believe it and not come to Jesus Christ. That's where it all leads.
Unless you are like the super-orthodox, who are all cranked up about the letters and don't even hear what the sentences say. They're just worried about the letters, the little, tiny things, the minutiae. But for the most part, take the temple down the street, they don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Old Testament; they can't. You know why? Because they can't live with it. In fact, most Jews don't even believe in a Messiah anymore, they believe in a Messianic era. It's sort of a 'happy days are here again' feeling that's going to show up sometime, that's it.
Paul says, "I not only worship the true God, I believe everything He ever wrote is true." Boy, that's a zapper on those people standing there. He says, "I believe in the Way," and that's all he had to say; Felix knew everything about it. He knew it meant Jesus Christ. "And I continue to worship my true God, and I trust totally in all Old Testament Scriptures." You see, to deny Jesus as the Messiah is to deny the Old Testament.
Jesus said in John 5:39, "You study the Scriptures, you search the Scriptures, because in them you think you have eternal life? They are they which speak of Me." On the road to Emmaus, He opened up the Old Testament, gave them the laws, the prophets, the hagiographa, the writings. He said to them, "All of the things concerning Himself." Yes, you can't study the Old Testament and not come to Christ. You're going to have to get rid of the Old Testament. That's what most Judaism has done today. To deny Jesus, a Jew must deny his Scriptures. To come to Jesus is to become completed in all that Judaism is.
Paul says, "I'm no heretic, folks, I've just come the route the whole way. I've finished it up. I have consummated my faith in my Messiah." It's a tragic thing to find the Jews all over the world who reject Christ as Messiah.
You see, if you reject Christ as the Messiah, pretty soon you'll give up the whole idea of a Messiah, because there is nothing else that fits it. There is nothing on the scene that even remotely looks like a possibility. It just can't happen anymore, so you just can it and say it's an era, not a person. Or you just deny it altogether. There are a few, scattered Orthodox, standing there, bobbing up and down, saying their prayers, cranking out the letter of the law, never getting behind it to even worry about what it means. In their blindness, they adhere to the Old Testament, but very few. Very few.
You know, in a sense, we Gentiles are better off than the Jewish unbelievers. I mean, I would love to have been born in a Jewish family. I think there are so many fantastic things about it. But I'm glad I am what I am, because that's what God wanted. Because I'm what I am, I'm where I am, and I like that.
Even though I have not been born into the stock of Israel, and even though I have not known the blessings that come because of that, I am better off and so are you, as a Gentile Christian, than an unbelieving Jew. Because the Bible says that the saddest person has got to be an unbelieving Jew who forfeits and apostatizes from the truth that he has. How much sorer punishment. I mean, to whom much is given, much is required. As a Christian who has accepted the truth, I worship the God of Israel. I believe all that the God of Israel ever said, and I believe in the Messiah of Israel for my salvation. I am every whit a Jew, in terms of all that I believe, if not in my nationality.
I thank God that Romans 11 says that God, in His wonderful grace, chose to graft us in, don't you? The unbelieving branch was cut off because of unbelief, and God grafted us in. But don't get smug and don't get self-satisfied, don't get high-brow about it, because the Bible says there is coming a time when Israel is going to be grafted back in. In fact, he says there is going to be a time when all Israel shall be saved. So Paul says, "I'm the only true Jew standing; you're apostates. These are the heretics, not me."
Let me add this: he didn't gloat on this. There is no gloating in his mind. I imagine, even as he thought about it and said it, his heart was in pain. You see, because he loved those people. You know, that's something that I don't think people can understand, because the world interprets love in such a narrow way. They don't understand what it is to love and really love.
So Paul says in Romans 9, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not. Please believe me, I know it's hard, but try. My conscience bears witness in the Holy Sprint." He knows his readers aren't going to believe him, but he says, "I have continual heaviness and sorrow in my heart. I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. I could almost wish myself to Hell if they could get to Heaven." He cared. In Romans 10:1, he says, "My zeal is for Israel, that they may be saved." He didn't gloat over it, he pained. It hurt him, anguish was caused in his heart.
So Paul simply says, "I'm the true Jew." In fact, he says in verse 15, just to really set the record straight, "I have hope toward God, the hope of the resurrection." The traditional hope of the Jew was the resurrection. You say, "Did the Old Testament teach a resurrection?" Of course it did! Isaiah 26:19, Job 19:26, Daniel 12:2, and elsewhere. The Old Testament taught a resurrection.
I believe in my heart that Abraham believed in a resurrection, that's why he was willing to sacrifice Isaac. I think that was ultimate faith. But you know, the Sadducees standing there didn't believe in a resurrection. You say, "How did they get around it if it's in Isaiah, Job, Daniel, etc.?" They got around it because they said this. "The only binding truth in the Old Testament is what Moses said out of the first five books. That's it." That's why, when Jesus was having an argument about resurrection, He quoted Exodus 3, because He knew that was the only thing that they would adhere to. He used it by implication, the name of God being the implication of resurrection.
The Sadducees were not traditional; they were heretics. They denied that which the Old Testament taught. They were modernists. They were the aristocratic family and they were the modernists theologically. They were not traditional Jews, and I'm sure the accusers here were mostly Sadducees. The high priest was a Sadducee, and most likely, the other elders were as well. So Paul says, "I'm the guy who believes in the truth, the resurrection of the dead for the just and the unjust." Yes, there will be a resurrection for both. Unsaved people? They will be resurrected physically, in some form. We'll talk about that next time.
Paul says, after saying that, "In this do I exercise myself. To have a conscience always devoid of offense toward God and men. As a true Jew, as one who believes in God and His word, and in the hope of the resurrection, that causes me to want to live a pure life. I don't want to offend God, I don't want to offend man."
Folks, that's the ultimate end of the testimony of any man, to be able to stand up and say, "My desire in life is never to offend God and never to offend man." Friends, that is the epitome. "To have my conscience never accuse me, so I live my life in accord with the standards of my God, what His Word reveals, and I have a clear conscience."
Oh, tremendous. He believed in those great truths. Look at verses 14-15. He believed in them and he built his life on them. Do you know that you really believe only what you act on? If you don't build your life on principles, then you don't really believe them. Paul believed them, stood by them, and stood blameless.
My mom used to always tell a story about a man named Blonden. Blonden was a tight-wire walker, and he decided to walk across Niagara Falls. They set up the wire, and I understand that even now, in the modern day, there is someone who is going to attempt it. Blonden strung the wire, got the whole thing set up, and got up to go across. He said to an acquaintance standing by, "Do you believe I can go across there?" And the man said, "Yes." He said, "Will you climb on my back and go with me?" And he declined. He said to another friend, his closest companion, "Do you believe I can walk across?" He said, "Yes." He said, "Will you climb on my back and go with me?" He said, "Yes." He did, and they went across together.
Which man believed him? The second one. You don't believe what you don't live by. That's right. I don't care what the principle is, biblically. If you really believe it, it's a part of your life, not just a part of what you say. You can carry that into any principle that we've ever taught. What you really believe, you act on. Paul said, "I believe all that is written in the Law and the Prophets, therefore I exercise myself to live a life consistent with what I believe."
Christian, you ought to live a life that fits the Word of God. You will, if you really believe it. Paul stood up and said, "I'm innocent. Check my life." Can you do that? Can you stand before the world blameless, void of offense? That's the epitome of testimony. So Paul defends himself and sets the stage for the verdict, which we'll see next time. Let's bow in prayer.
Father, we thank You for the testimony of the man, Paul, how he stood for what he believed and was willing to live or die for it because he believed it. Thank You for his blameless life. Help us to learn the lessons that the Lord has given us in the pages of His Word, and that the Spirit continues to teach to us by application in our hearts. We give You the praise, in Jesus' name. Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
Virtual Jay Peak is a simulation of snowboarding at the Jay Peak resort in Vermont. The terrain is based on geological survey data of the mountain and surrounding area, with the addition of signature trails and buildings. The software is based on the extreme backcountry snowboarding game Soul Ride.
# Pentium II-300MHz or better PC
# An OpenGL 1.1-capable video card

subset: commoncrawl


text:
According to Plutarch, the Greeks found all the rectangles with integer sides, whose areas are equal to their perimeters. Can you find them? What rectangular boxes, with integer sides, have. . . .
How can you change the surface area of a cuboid but keep its volume the same? How can you change the volume but keep the surface area the same?
A box has faces with areas 3, 12 and 25 square centimetres. What is the volume of the box?
A spider is sitting in the middle of one of the smallest walls in a room and a fly is resting beside the window. What is the shortest distance the spider would have to crawl to catch the fly?
A ribbon runs around a box so that it makes a complete loop with two parallel pieces of ribbon on the top. How long will the ribbon be?
Jo made a cube from some smaller cubes, painted some of the faces of the large cube, and then took it apart again. 45 small cubes had no paint on them at all. How many small cubes did Jo use?
Find a cuboid (with edges of integer values) that has a surface area of exactly 100 square units. Is there more than one? Can you find them all?
What is the greatest volume you can get for a rectangular (cuboid) parcel if the maximum combined length and girth are 2 metres?
Discover a way to sum square numbers by building cuboids from small cubes. Can you picture how the sequence will grow?


text:
Augustus Edwards' greatest asset as a running back is making quick decisions. He sees a hole and the Tottenville star hits it.
He's the same way in his recruitment.
Despite holding 17 BCS-level scholarship offers and National Signing Day eight months away, the standout junior is ready to decide on his future. Edwards will pick between Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina State at a press conference July 10.
"I just want to get ready for the season," the 6-foot-2, 220-pounder said. "It's also for insurance, who knows what could happen?"
Edwards, who rushed for 995 yards on 146 carries with 10 touchdowns and scored three more times also in leading Tottenville the PSAL City Championship division semifinals, has only visited Syracuse of his four finalists, but plans to see two of the others before July 10.
As of now, Syracuse is his favorite, he said. His former Tottenville teammate, Alvin Cornelius is headed there this coming fall and the Orange has landed several of the top city prospects in recent years. In fact, they had 10 city products this past season.
"I like Syracuse a lot, there was chemistry with the kids there," he said. "I see what they do, what they're about."
Edwards also landed scholarship offers from UConn, Vanderbilt, ndiana, Temple, Rugters and Pittsburgh, but narrowed down his list based on his comfort level with the different coach staffs, the amount of time they have spent recruiting him and where he thinks he fits best.
"I looked at the values I'm looking for in schools and that's how I got to them," he said. "I'm looking for a coaching staff I trust, [immediate] playing time, overall trust and support."
Whoever lands Edwards will be getting a running back capable excelling at the next level, one college coach familiar with him said.
"His potential is unlimited," the coach said. "He runs downhill, he puts his foot in the ground and goes. He's a back that can help you win games in the ACC. He's got great size, good speed, he's a tough kid, plays on a winning program. He can run, he can catch."
While coaches will almost certainly keep calling him leading up until National Signing Day in early February, Edwards will have his decisions by July 10 and won't change it.
"I feel like my mind is pretty much made up," Edwards said. "I'm not going back."
Ogundeko set for July 20th commitment: Ebenezer Ogundeko, the star defensive end out of Thomas Jefferson who saw his recruitment shoot up this spring after de-committing from Connecticut, plans to pick a school July 30 at Aviator Sports Complex in Brooklyn, he said.
Ogundeko, the 6-foot-4, 240-pound standout who amassed 79 tackles and 11 sacks in leading Jefferson to the PSAL City Championship division quarterfinals last winter, will choose between Florida, Notre Dame and Syracuse. He is set to graduate early from Jefferson and plans to enroll in college in January of next year. Ogundeko is still hearing from plenty of other schools, such as Maryland, Mami, UConn and Alabama, he said, but doesn't plan to open up his recruitment.
"It's really those schools," he said of Syracuse, Notre Dame and Florida. "I let everyone know about my top three, that I'm planning on making my decision soon."
Ogundeko, who will attend the Opening, a four-day camp July 5-8 for the nation's top prospects I Oregon at Nike Headquarters, has visited his three finalists once apiece. He plans to see Syracuse again before his decision. Ogundeko and Edwards, Tottenville's dynamic running back, are close friends and have previously talked about attending the same school. Syracuse is the lone program to make the final list for the two prospects.
"It depends where I want to go, where he wants to go," Ogundeko said. "We talk about it all the time."
NOTES: Sheepshead Bay defensive tackle Rashaad Coward picked up his first offer recently, from Wagner College, to go along with interest from UConn, Syracuse, Maryland, Marshall, Albany, Stony Brook, Temple, Duke, Fordham, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Boston College, he said. Coward recently visited Fordham. … Fort Hamilton wide receiver/defensive back Travon Reid Segure holds offers from Temple, Syracuse and UMass and recently visited UConn. … Tottenville reciever Malique Belfort said he has offers from Boston College, Arizona State, Temple, Maryland and Illinois. Beach Channel lineman Folorunso
Fatukasi listed significant interest from Hampton, Old Dominion, Delaware, Maryland, Temple, James Madison and UConn. Buffalo remains his lone offer.


text:
Pittsburgh Steelers Forum, Message Board & Chat
Pittsburgh Steelers Forum, Message Board and Chat
Around the NFL
> NFL a tool of the establishment
View Full Version :
NFL a tool of the establishment
sick beats
If this keeps up, I may stop watching and supporting the league, completely.
It's a tough time to be American. The culture seems to have lost it's ability to protest. Or maybe they have lost their desire. Because when I think of protests and boycotts I think of the 60's. And it's weird because we have so many more avenues to utilize, but just don't seem to care enough. The rights of the people have been slowly whittled away to the point that we have become numb and placated to a sense of false comfort. I don't support the NFL for many reasons. But this is by far the biggest so far. Their product has become off-balanced both on and off the field.
I will always support the Steelers. I have always loved what they stood for. Blue collar. It's a core value of what makes this country America. But this country has been steered away from that. Like there is no honor in working hard these days.
And if the NFL wants to contribute to the decimation of this country by not supporting the Bill of Rights, I will not support them.
But I will always support the Steelers and what they stand for.
Sorry for the rant, but it's apparent what is going on in this country. And it is difficult to respond to this thread topic without mentioning the massive amount of subterfuged agenda.
It's disgusting and embarrassing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2018 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.


text:
Get Inspired To Wear Cool Coveralls This Spring
It's hardly surprising that coveralls--the toughened-up, utilitarian cousin of the currently trending jumpsuit--are enjoying a revival right now among celebrities like Kate Moss and Charlize Theron. These one-pieces are decidedly low-maintenance, whether you pair a denim version with sneakers for the weekend or dress up a sleeker style with heels for a night out. Click through our slideshow to see who's wearing this standout trend, and shop our get-the-look items too.
Dangling earrings and cat-eye sunglasses add femininity to Moss' coveralls.
Get The Look:
3.1 Phillip Lim Flight Suit ($850) in Smoke Blue
Layer a printed jacket over a brightly coloured jumpsuit for bold contrast.
Get The Look:
Lanvin Button Front Jumpsuit ($1895) in Fuchsia
A silky jumpsuit gives this workwear-inspired trend a luxe feel.
Get The Look:
J Brand Angelina Jumpsuit ($595) in Black
Stefani's G-Star Raw Arc 3D Boiler Suit ($223) and Puma by Mirahara's bright MY-66 Sneakers ($120) channel an urban sportif vibe.
Get The Look:
Mango Denim Jumpsuit ($100) in Medium Denim
Nielsen makes the coveralls cut again, wearing hers with a heavy-duty jacket and combat boots for edgy appeal.
Get The Look:
Karen Millen Zip Jumpsuit ($380) in Black
Subtle hardware embellishments give these coveralls a hint of toughness.
Get The Look:
PureDKNY Three Quarter Sleeve Jumpsuit ($395) in Greystone
Theron styled MiH Jeans' sleek The Boiler Suit ($297) with matching strappy heels for an elegant going-out look.
Get The Look:
Topshop Pini Tapered Jumpsuit ($110)
The model echoes her coveralls' masculine-inspired vibe with a boxy coat.
Get The Look:
John Lawrence Sullivan Twill Jumpsuit ($820)
Worn with Stella McCartney's Spearmint Faux Python Cross Body Bailey Boo Bag ($1200) and beaded sandals, Miller's punchy Isabel Marant one-piece feels ready for spring.
Get The Look:
Diesel Jollix Jumpsuit ($485) in Green
Yigal Azrouel's Canvas Jumpsuit ($990) has a relaxed fit that exudes off-duty nonchalance.
Get The Look:
Enza Costa Challis Jumpsuit ($242)


text:
Sparky AndersonRetired Players
Manager | Ht: | Wt:
|Tigers | Sparky Anderson's No. 11 jersey to be retired
Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:10:06 -0800
The Detroit Tigers have announced plans to retire the No. 11 jersey of former manager Sparky Anderson, according to MLB.com's Jason Beck. The date of the ceremony has not yet been determined. The Tigers will also wear a patch honoring Anderson during spring training games and raise a flag to remember him prior to their home opener on April 8.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: MLB.com - Jason Beck
|MLB | Sparky Anderson dies
Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:54:01 -0700
Former manager Sparky Anderson died at the age of 76 Thursday, Nov. 4, according to MLB.com's Mark Sheldon. Anderson died as a result of complications from dementia. KFFL offers its condolences to Anderson's family and friends.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: MLB.com - Mark Sheldon
|MLB | Sparky Anderson in grave condition
Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:27:47 -0700
Former Detroit Tigers and Cincinnati Reds manager Sparky Anderson is in hospice care at home in California for what family says are complications resulting from dementia, The Detroit News' Tom Gage reports.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: The Detroit News - Tom Gage


text:
Continental Collection
Premium Laminate Floors
Our Collections of Laminate Flooring offer exotic wood colors and patterning in a low-maintenance, versatile, and long-lasting laminate floor.
Product Overview:
- CA Health Dep. (CARB-2) Certified ECO Friendly.
- Authentic wood design.
- HDF Core (12mm).
- AC-3 Rating +Matt Wire Brushed+Registered Embossed surface texture.
- Waxed 4-side around water resistance.
- AC Rating: AC3
- Surface Texture: Textured
- Edge Type: Micro V Paint Beveled Edge
- Length (in.): 47.87
- Plank Size: 1216 mm(48") x 197mm(7.8") x 12mm(0.5").
- Packaging Dimensions (inches): Height: 3.94 Length: 48.03 Width: 8.27
- Underpad Attached: No
- *1 Pallet = 1031.5 sq ft.


text:
Who Are We?
Women on Waves aims to prevent unsafe abortions and empower women to exercise their human rights to physical and mental autonomy. We trust that women can do a medical abortion themselves and make sure that women have access to medical abortion and information through innovative strategies. But ultimately it is about giving women the tools to resist repressive cultures and laws. Not every woman has the possibility to be a public activist but there are things we can all do ourselves.
Women on Waves was founded in 1999 by Rebecca Gomperts. After completing her training as an abortion doctor, Rebecca Gomperts worked as a physician on board Greenpeace's ship, the Rainbow Warrior II. In South America she met many women who greatly suffer both physically and psychologically due to unwanted pregnancies and lack of access to safe, legal abortion. Their stories were all heart wrenching. There were women who were raped. There were women who had no means of support. And there were women who were ostracized from their communities. These women and their stories are the inspiration for Women on Waves.
With a ship Women on Waves can provide contraceptives, information, training, workshops, and safe and legal abortion services outside territorial waters in countries where abortion is illegal. In international waters (12 miles off the coast of a country) the local laws do not apply.
Working in close cooperation with local organizations, Women on Waves wants to respond to an urgent medical need and draw public attention to the consequences of unwanted pregnancy and illegal abortion. Women on Waves supports the efforts of local organizations to change the laws in their country.
Women on Waves is registered in the Netherlands as a charitable organization under Article 24, lid 4 of the Successiewet 1956. As a result, donations to its Postbank account 3316 are fully tax deductible to the extent allowable by Dutch law. The activities of Women on Waves are supported by private and philanthropic funding. We depend on your contributions (which you can make on-line via a secure server) to continue our activities.
Our Team
Read about all of the people who are and have worked for Women on Waves! Read more »
Medical Licenses of Women on Waves
Women on Waves travels with a specialized abortion doctor, a gynaecologist, and a specialised nurse so we can offer help and advice that even exceeds the highest standards for normal abortion services in the Netherlands and other EU countries. Read more »
10 years of Women on Waves (2009)!
On September 4th, Women on Waves celebrated the 10 years with a preview of the documentary in-the-making by Diana Whitten. Over 100 people from countries all over the world attended the event! Read more »
Legal Position of Women on Waves
A short explanation of our legal situation. Read more »
Financial information
Here you can find the annual reports of Women on Waves. Currently we have 1 part time paid staff member and a lot of volunteers. The members of the Board receive no remuneration, either directly or indirectly. The management receives a salary for the activities carried out. Read more »


text:
The radical babes of GazaPosted in Posts on 02/26/2010 02:32 pm by Laila El-Haddad
I want another baby. I really do. Yassine-not so much.
But he may not have to worry-at least not if Martin Kramer has his way. The current fellow at Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs has suggested I -and other Palestinian women from Gaza- should deliberately be stopped from having babies because chances are, they will be grow up to be radicals.
According to the Electronic Intifada, who first broke the story last week, Kramer offered this fasinating piece of solicited advice in the annual Herzliyah Conference in Israel earlier this month in which he called on "the West" to take measures to limit the births of Muslim Palestinians of Gaza and consider them a form of terrorism, or, as Kramer puts it, "extreme demographic armament". He also praised the unconscionable Israeli siege for getting the ball rolling already and reducing the numbers of Palestinian babies there (see: infanticide; Gaza Diet). If your skin didn't curl watching the audience clap at the end of that video, well, save your soul somehow.
Family Planning, the Martin Kramer way
Kramer's argument: Gaza is a cauldron of crazy; there is already an excess of aimless young Muslim men loitering around and
many most all of them will be extremists! Solution: they shouldn't be born to start with. Like I said: brilliant!
How does he suggest they implement this ground-breaking plan? Stop providing "pro-natal subsidies" that encourage these births. Pro-natal subsidies, you might ask? Is that like pre-natal vitamins? Close, but spinal bifida or not, a baby is still a baby. Kramer is referring to food and humanitarian assistance for "Palestinians with refugee status", who make up 70% of the Gaza Strip ( and of whom, I might add, 40% are already malnourished, and 80% rely on food hand-outs for survival).
Yes, you read that correctly. "In other words", says MJ Rosenberg, Kramer seems to be saying "starve the Palestinians so they don't have babies and…starving the babies so they don't grow up."
Lest an outraged public be all up in arms about…plagiarism, Kramer himself notes the idea is "not at all original". Got THAT right…let's see, where HAVE we heard this kind of chilling drivel before? Hmmm. Oh wait- the Nazis beat you to it! Except back then they called it Eugenics. Juan Cole contends it is a recycled form of Malthusianism.
Nice company you keep, Kramer. Way to hog the limelight.
One would think such unapologetic racism need not even warrant discussion. Ever the flag bearer of academic
iniquity freedoms, Harvard disagrees.
This, despite the fact that Kramer's ideas appears to meet the international legal definition of a call for genocide according to the Geneva Convention (which includes measures "intended to prevent births within" a specific "national, ethnic, racial or religious group.").
Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah spread the word about it, trying to force Harvard to take a stand, but instead they rushed to his defense.
"I wonder how long Mr. Kramer's views would be tolerated if — all other things being equal — he were an Arab scholar who had called for Jews to be placed in a giant, sealed enclosure which virtually no one is allowed to leave and enter, and deprived of food and schooling for their children in order to reduce their birthrate?" Abunimah asked.
The ghastliness of it all was best summed up by an exchange between the mock Dan Halutz and Doron Almog to the real Martin Kramer on Twitter:
danhalutz RT @doronalmog: @DanHalutz Remember that time u, me, & @Martin_Kramer debated @Harvard over drinks on how to get rid of those superfluous Gazans? Good times
danhalutz @DoronAlmog Of course! @Martin_Kramer was all about the "pro-natal subsidies" and you just wanted to bulldoze those Gazans. Me, I like F16s
danhalutz @Martin_Kramer Dear Sir: I admire your brilliant ideas but fear ending pronatal subsidies will not eliminate superfluous Arabs fast enough.
danhalutz @Martin_Kramer: I say replace 'pronatal' subsidies with 'pro-morbid' ones: cluster bombs, white phosphorus, napalm. Let's co-author a paper!


text:
HARTSVILLE, S.C. – The Coker women's basketball team will open up 2014, and the second half of its season, this Saturday (Jan. 4) against the Brevard College Tornados in the friendly confines of Timberlake-Lawton Gymnasium. The SAC match-up is slated for a 2 p.m. tip and a live video webcast of the game will be available at www.cokercobras.com.
The Cobras enter the heart of their SAC schedule at 5-4 overall and 3-2 in conference. Tanesha Stenson continues to lead the charge for the Cobras with her 15 points and 8.2 rebounds per game. Her points are good for seventh in the SAC, while she is third in rebounds. Hailey Yohn is the team's second leading scorer at 12 points per game and she is pulling down 3.9 boards a game.
Brevard rides to Hartsville on a four-game losing streak with a 2-7 overall record and 1-4 conference mark. Madison Lenox and Katie Williams, who both average 11.4 and 10.6 points per game, lead the Tornados offensively.
Tickets for Saturday's game can be purchased at the door for $5 dollars for adults, $3 dollars for students, and free to all Coker students, faculty, and staff. It will also be Youth Basketball Day at Coker, with all youth basketball players dressed in uniform receiving free admission to the games.
Release written by: Sharod Williams, Coker sports information graduate assistant


text:
Written by Elizabeth Barrett Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:06
The public is invited to the Gothenburg Alumni Banquet Saturday, May 25, at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Building gymnasium.
Tickets are $25 and are available at the three local banks and also at the door but organizers prefer they are bought before the banquet.
The classes of 1943, 1953, 1963, 1973, 1983, 1993 and 2003 will be recognized.
Josh Clark, a 2012 GHS graduate, will sing the national anthem and serve as master of ceremonies.
Entertainment will be provided by Dudley Elementary sixth grader Jonah Taylor.
Mayor Joyce Hudson, a 1969 graduate; guidance counselor Jerry Wiggins; and 2013 graduate Logan Sheets will offer a welcome.
Lee Carlson, a 1972 graduate, will provide the invocation and 1953 graduate Lyle Franzen the benediction.
The Rev. Gloria (Keiser) Dovre, of the Class of 1981, is the speaker.
A social time is planned Saturday, from 9-11 a.m., in the cafeteria with community and school tours available at 10 and 11 a.m.


text:
Hole House Bunkhouse
Farm located 12 bed bunkhouse, 3 rooms of 4 bunks, each en-suite. More bunk and breakfast than hostel and still at a hostel price. Each bunkroom is immaculately clean and provided with all the beds ready made with quilts etc.
There is an attached breakfast and TV room where guests serve themselves
breakfast and tea and coffee. There are laundry facilities provided free of charge. Also included are cooking facilities for guests to prepare their own meals if they choose. There is a pub in the village which serves evening meals. For those with vehicles there is ample free parking on site.
Please Note:
Payment on-site has to be cash.
Check in time (earliest) is 16.00
Check out Time (latest) is 09.30
The price is totally inclusive and there is no tax to pay.
Availability & RatesTo view availability and prices please select dates and click 'Update Dates'
Hostel Facilities & Policies
- Bicycle parking
- Board Games
- Free Breakfast
- Cable TV
- Child Friendly
- Common Room
- Credit Cards Not Accepted
- Free Parking
- Free WiFi
- Hot Showers
- Self-Catering Facilities
- Laundry Facilities
- Linen Included
- Luggage Storage
- Non Smoking
- Outdoor Terrace
- Pet Friendly
- Reading Light
- Taxes included
- Tea & Coffee Making Facilities
- Towels Included
- Washing Machine
Cancellation PolicyThis property has a 1 day cancellation policy. Failure to cancel within this time will result in a cancellation charge equal to the first night of your stay.
Must-Read Hostel InfoThis property has specific Terms & Conditions.
Please Note:
Payment on-site has to be cash.
Check in time (earliest) is 16.00
Check out Time (latest) is 09.30
The price is totally inclusive and there is no tax to pay.
DirectionsShow MapHide Map
DL13 2HX. The Bunkhouse is located north of Eastgate village on the east side of the Rookhope Burn. If travelling from the east, turn right before the bridge and pub in Eastgate, if travelling from the west turn left after the village pub and bridge. Continue past the church and up the bank straight ahead, at the first house continue past on to the farm road and stop in the farm yard outside the bunkhouse. DL13 2HX
Located Near
Located in the middle of Weardale in the Pennine Dales. There is a village pub for evening meals and the nearest town is just 3 miles away. Fabulous un-discovered countryside for walking, cycling, canoeing or horse riding.


text:
no spam, unsubscribe anytime.
According to the CDC, 25.8 million people have diabetes; 18.8 million have been formally diagnosed. 5-10% of these have type 1 diabetes.
The cause of type 1 diabetes is not yet fully understood. It is an autoimmune disease in which the body's own immune system mistakenly attacks and destroys insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, known as beta cells. Genetic, viral, and environmental factors may also be involved. As a result, the pancreas produces little to no insulin, which the body needs to convert sugars and starches into energy. Glucose remains in the bloodstream, causing symptoms with the potential to build to lifethreatening levels without intervention. It is usually diagnosed in children and young adults, but is also on occasion found later in adulthood.
Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include excessive thirst, constant urinating, extreme hunger, weight loss, fatigue, blurred vision, and nausea or stomachache.
Type 1 diabetes cannot be controlled indefinitely through diet and exercise alone. Managing type 1 diabetes requires routine monitoring of blood sugar levels, done by pricking the finger with a lancet to check blood sugars with a glucose meter several times a day. Type 1 diabetics must inject themselves with insulin pens or syringes of insulin several times a day, or infuse insulin into their bodies with an insulin pump.
Regular exercise can help stabalize blood glucose levels, as can a carefully planned diet incorporating the "carb counting" technique. The goal is to keep glucose levels as close to normal as possible.
Type 1 diabetes is not caused by diet or lifestyle. Currently there is no way to prevent or cure type 1 diabetes, but there are many efforts toward one day finding a cure.
Click here for more diabetes resources!


text:
50 Tice Blvd
140 E Ridgewood Avenue
Park 80 West
999 Riverview Drive
7 Skyline Drive
73 Market Street
50 Main Street
1 Meadowlands Plaza
2001 Route 46
777 Westchester Avenue
175 Huguenot Street
1740 Broadway
1325 Avenue of the Americas
100 Enterprise Drive
21st Floor
555 Madison Avenue
1501 Broadway
One Rockefeller Plaza
424-434 W. 33rd Street
1177 Avenue of the Americas
One Gateway Center
415 Madison Avenue
5 Penn Plaza
104 West 40th Street
250 Park Avenue
845 Third Avenue
340 Madison Avenue
230 Park Ave
245 Park Avenue
750 Third Avenue
747 Third Avenue
260 Madison Avenue
132 West 31st Street
100 Park Avenue
221 River Street
275 Seventh Avenue
600 Third Avenue
136 Madison Avenue
387 Park Avenue South
2500 Plaza 5
55 Madison Avenue
The Falchi Building
101 Avenue of the Americas
51 JFK Parkway
101 Hudson Street
200 Vesey Street
165 Broadway
14 Wall Street
80 Broad Street
77 Water Street
300 Cadman Plaza West
41 Flatbush Ave.
118-35 Queens Blvd.
One Stamford Plaza
35 Bay Street
20 Commerce Drive
100 Connell Drive
1979 Marcus Avenue
233 Mt. Airy Road
15 River Road
John F. Kennedy International Airport
JFK International Airport
70 East Sunrise Highway
83 Wooster Heights Rd
626 RexCorp Plaza
100 Duffy Avenue
8 Wright Street
30 Knightsbridge Road
68 South Service Road
200 Broadhollow Road
Find out more about our locations in Suffern.
Call us now on: 1800 209 4949
Enjoy a sociable way of working in a communal workspace, with flexible options so you'll only ever pay for what you use.
Drop in whenever you need, with desk space in a professional, shared environment on a first come first served basis.
Select from 5 or 10 days per month at your chosen location.
Make yourself at home with a personal desk and storage facilities in a professional, shared environment.
Get unlimited access 24/7 at your chosen location.
Create a base in one location and use all 3000 for free.
You'll find them in all kinds of places, so there's always one nearby.
City centres
Out of town
Retail parks
1047 locations in United States
3000 worldwide in 120 countries
Make new contacts, meet local companies, share ideas and create new business opportunities.
Coffee chat
Informal events
Networking events
Annual retreat
Need more information?
Want to ask some questions?
Create an account and start using us
Download the app and start using us
Visit one of our locations


text:
FORT MYERS — Working all the angles, civil engineers have a keen eye for even the slightest details in what they design. Every square inch is accounted for and has its own purpose, playing a small but efficient part in the greater body of work.
That's the approach Ricky Knapp takes to the mound and has excelled in doing for Florida Gulf Coast University's baseball team.


text:
Central Bible College Admissions Stats
The chart below shows your chances of admission to this school, based on the information in your profile.
Create a free profile so you can see your chances at Central Bible College and thousands of other top colleges.
Undergrad Application Fee
|AP Acceptance:
|Credit for Life Experience:
Many colleges put a great deal of weight on student ACT/SAT test scores when considering applications. Cappex can help you see how you rank compared to students who have been accepted to Central Bible College
|3000 N Grant Ave Springfield, MO 65803-1033
|(417) 833-2551
|General Site:
My tips for all prospective students would be apply and enroll early because most scholarships are on a first come first serve basis. Last but not least housing, guys will want Flower (it's the better hall) and girls will want Bowie 3rd, 4th, or 5th floor.Read More
If you are truly considering Central Bible College, it is worth coming out to spend a few days on campus. The atomosphere here, is like no other. You can look forward to chapel everyday; each chapel is something great. Level of commitment on this campus from the students is outstanding, everyone seems to want to serve and get involved, espically in ministry outreaches.Read More
Come prepared to study, grow in God, and have a blast!Read More
I would not choose to attend here, because the consolidation will not allow you to receive a degree from this college.Read More
Strive to do your best and never let yourself slide by. Do all the reading and do not procrastinate. Never be afraid to ask any professor or the pastors to help you.Read More


text:
WoW has been pretty quiet lately. I've been totally immersed in Diablo 3, along with my friend Dan Spidell. He's been enjoying the game and came across a few things that inspired the writing bug. Since so many of you snagged the Annual Pass for WoW, I told Dan I'd post his thoughts on my blog.
Note: I will endeavor to keep this as spoiler-free as possible. I'll be talking about game mechanics primarily (and my impressions of same), and when I do have to mention something about the story, I'll be as oblique as possible.
So. The wait is over. Diablo 3 is here.
Now what?
This article isn't designed to be a review per se. My plan is to talk about the good and bad of Blizzard's newest juggernaut and hopefully get a feel for how it's going to do long term. What did they do right? Where did they miss the mark? And how will all of this affect the longevity of one of the most-anticipated games of all time? more…


text:
This just in.
Police Montréal
D.Markuze was arrested for social media harassment (breach of probation). Thanks to those who helped with the investigation
#Mabus #SPVM
Well hallelujah.
This just in.
Police Montréal
D.Markuze was arrested for social media harassment (breach of probation). Thanks to those who helped with the investigation
#Mabus #SPVM
Well hallelujah.
JohnnieCanuck says
Your links are broken, Ophelia.
jamessweet says
It's mostly just sad. I guess it's good to see enforcement, though.
Ophelia Benson says
It's Twitter. I don't bother about links on Twitter.
Ophelia Benson says
James, well sure it's sad, but we still need him to be stopped. And if he gets treatment and gets better it's not even sad. He's not going to be tortured.
Mabus "free" but spending his life compulsively sending out threats is pretty damn sad too.
Teresa MacBain says
I'm so glad! No more harassment for all of us…I hope!
Sili says
Praise be to Spud!
Eamon Knight says
Given that he's been on the agenda at recent Eschaton organizer meetings, this is welcome news. Presumably, this means we won't have to include "Watch out for this guy" handouts in the conference booklet, or notify the Ottawa cops that we have a potential issue….
Crommunist says
Oh fiddlesticks! Now how will I get the latest Nostradamus-related news?
Kausik Datta says
Mabus has been a persistent pest for a pretty long time. Having been one of his harassment victims, I am freshly out of fucks for his supposed mental condition. That excuse would have flown the first time, but not this time. I hope they either lock him up, or at least, make sure that he doesn't lay his grubby paws on any internet-enabled technology ever.
leftwingfox says
I'm sure the History Channel will have you covered, Crom.
dearania says
Thanks so much for posting this.
Those of us in Ottawa can breathe a sigh of relief.
dearania says
F says
It's about damn time.
So, does he keep telling the cops that he's not Markuze as well, but just a huge fan of his?
Ophelia Benson says
Yes, it's good news for Eschaton. I'd half forgotten about that aspect.
jflcroft says
Every time I got a tweet in which I was singled out for criticism alongside PZ, it made me feel very important. What will I do now?
Poor man. Hope he gets some help.
Jafafa Hots says
That excuse would have flown the first time, but not this time.
If you use the "mental health" excuse one too many times, you're suddenly well? Or do you just mean that when someone is disturbed we treat that as a health issue once but if that doesn't cure them we just toss them in prison?
Markuze scared a lot of people, harassed a lot of people, threatened a lot of people.
It is good to stop that.
If his behavior is due to illness we must continue to see it as illness and treat it as illness while protecting anyone his illness might pose a threat to, including himself.
Anything else is barbaric.
Mental health is not a "quick-fix" situation. We as a society don't like that, so mental health care is on average non-existent and at best bare-bones.
We might not blame mental illness on demons quite so much anymore, but we still treat sufferers as weak of character, immoral, evil. We're still in the dark ages. We mostly don't WANT to deal with mental health issues.
We have to acknowledge that. We have to accept that and the burden and responsibility as a society that comes with properly dealing with it.
Even if that means providing treatment for people for YEARS.
To deny that is similar to denying climate change.
We either face the PROBLEM or deny it and let it bite us in the ass.
ttch says
The interesting thing to me is that according to this story in The Gazette (Montreal), one of the complainants had to first convince the Montreal police that a court order had already been issued about Markuze's behavior last May. He did this by referencing the exact order and quoting its text to them.
John Morales says
If his behavior is due to illness we must continue to see it as illness and treat it as illness while protecting anyone his illness might pose a threat to, including himself.
First, one can't treat behaviour, one can only seek to modify it, and second, it's quite possible that it's not the illness, but his bad nature that motivates his behaviour.
We might not blame mental illness on demons quite so much anymore, but we still treat sufferers as weak of character, immoral, evil.
There is no such dichotomy, as I noted above.
Rodney Nelson says
Quite probably Markuze has mental problems. However that doesn't give him a free ride to harass people for years and years. He needs to be stopped. If treatment stops him then give him treatment. If jail stops him then put him in jail. He is committing crimes so jail is an appropriate remedy. He's already been told "bad boy, don't do it again" and he's done it again. Perhaps jail will get his attention and convince him not to do it again.
'dirigible says
"We either face the PROBLEM or deny it and let it bite us in the ass."
The problem was that people were being harassed. Making excuses for this bit people in the ass.
"We mostly don't WANT to deal with mental health issues."
This thread is about a mental health issue being dealt with. People wanted it dealt with. It is being dealt with.
anubisprime says
What about Pat Robertson?
He has been sending 'social media harassment' regular as an old dude on ex-lax for donkey years.
Talking of which that other donkey little Billy Donohue aka 'Marion' must be due for a pull on threatening correspondence surely?
But I suppose the Mabus bust is a good place to start as any!
Hope he gets therapy and lifelong t'internets' ban!
Jafafa Hots says
First, one can't treat behaviour, one can only seek to modify it, and second, it's quite possible that it's not the illness, but his bad nature that motivates his behaviour.
What's the difference, in the official John Morales dictionary, between treating and modifying?
Guess what, John… when someone is on psych meds you're doing both. You're treating illness and hopefully modifying behavior. And I can tell you from personal experience, meds modify behavior.
In fact, cognitive therapy is a treatment and the hoped for result is a modification in behavior.
Then you go on to declare "there is no such dichotomy" just after you yourself displayed it.
And Rodney, dirigible, where did I say his having been re-arrested is NOT dealing with the problem? Where did I ever say anything to give that impression?
I was responding to the thing, whatcha callit – the QUOTE, above my comment. That "the mental health excuse won't fly."
Doctors have determined that he is mentally ill and that contributes to his actions.
That is not an excuse, it's just a thing that is.
Properly dealing with his mental illness might mean meds and supervision, it might mean active probation, it might mean institutionalization or incarceration.
NOWHERE did I claim that his arrest was NOT dealing with the problem, so please stop refuting an argument I never made.
NOWHERE did I say that any particular method of handling his mental illness is off-limits.
NOWHERE did I say he should not have been arrested.
I am simply pointing out that if his behavior is the result of mental illness, then that is the case whether or not you're tired of seeing it characterized that way. There is no "well, screw the mental illness thing, he can't use that excuse any more" statute of limitations.
There is no point where we get to say "Screw what the doctors say, I'm tired of being forced to pretend to have compassion for the mentally ill, I need to get my vengeance on."
Markuze needs to be dealt with and people need to be protected from him.
That doesn't mean that we get to lazily characterize mental illness as an "excuse" that we can get tired of hearing.
That doesn't mean we get to act like creationists or and deny medical assessment as irrelevant.
It doesn't mean we get to ignore science and declare a person's actions the result of immorality simply because we're tired of being compassionate or tired of letting anger take a back seat.
It doesn't mean we get to declare that there is no dichotomy while simultaneously serving up a prime example of it like John Morales just did in his typically pompous style.
So… last time he was ill and gosh, despite all, we hope for the best for him. This time we're sick of it, so fuck his "mental health" excuses, he deserves whatever he gets?
He's ill. He's in the system. That's what should happen.
If you need someone to be demonize, make it the Montreal Police, who seem determined to ignore the situation until forced to act.
Rodney Nelson says
Markuze was diagnosed as bipolar and a substance abuser by a mental health professional. Fine, I accept he has mental problems. The judge ordered him to stay off the internet. He hasn't. He's committed crimes both before and after his trial. Apparently whatever therapy, if any, he's been undergoing hasn't stopped him from threatening complete strangers. So perhaps something stronger than a weekly visit to a therapist is needed to stop Markuze from threatening complete strangers.
Is this unreasonable? If so, in what way? He is an admitted criminal who keeps reoffending in the way he has been doing for years. Perhaps someone needs to get Markuze's attention, because the judge's order isn't working. I'm not saying throw him in a supermax prison for the rest of his life. I do think the realization that more could happen to him than seeing a therapist on a regular basis might be enough to keep Markuze from reoffending.
Eamon Knight says
I can't be arsed to look up the old blog posts, but it was noticed and discussed at the time of his release that nothing effective and enforceable had been done about his condition. The system is failing him (and the public, specifically us) big time.
Wheel Bolt says
On the night before the launch When O-rings were selling at a premium because of the novelty precise these advancements are increasing the importance of O-rings The rubber industry has gone through its share of transformation after the accident FKM is not a good material for cold temperature applications backup rings


text: If your Maytag refrigerator has a change the filter indicator light, it needs to be reset when you replace the water filter cartridge. To reset, press and hold the lock and light buttons (lock and water on newer fridges) on the dispenser for about 4 seconds. Once the indicator light starts to blink, release the button(s) and it should be reset.


text:
Answering the question asked by the title of one of his books, "What Is Cinema?" the great film theorist André Bazin wrote, "[It is a] recreation of the world in its own image, an image unburdened by the freedom of interpretation of the artist or the irreversibility of time."
Unlike other art forms, he further argued, cinema can record reality without any artificial mediation. Just point the camera and shoot; no artifices such as paint or words or human intervention come between the art and the object. But there are two problems with this ideal. First, where do you point the camera? It involves a choice; the subjective element is unavoidable. Second, unmediated reality gets pretty boring. People like stories.
Ambitious young filmmaker Matthew Porterfield tries to minimize these problems by employing a vérité style to suggest an elliptical, oblique narrative, one that demands a lot of participation from the viewer, who must piece together what's going on – like any other observer thrust into the midst of strangers' lives.
Porterfield's previous film along these lines, "Putty Hill" (2010), was widely praised. I found it ostentatiously austere, paradoxically calling attention to the filmmaker's efforts to conceal his presence. But his new film shows that he is becoming the kind of guy that Bazin might like.
It opens with discontinuous scenes from a beachside resort, shot in long, roving takes from discrete spots, as if perceived by some voyeur following the action. A young woman confronts a man at a party; they are behind a glass door, so what they are saying is inaudible. Next, somewhere else, an estranged husband and wife are going through the grim ritual of dividing up belongings. The phone rings, the message machine kicks in – it's the woman from the scene before, who is asking if she can stay over for a while.
The identities, relationships, and back stories of these characters emerge indirectly through snippets of conversation and other details. The young girl is Taryn (Deragh Campbell), a waiflike runaway with a Northern Irish brogue and a backpack bigger than herself. She has descended on the couple, Kim (Kim Taylor) and Bill (Ned Oldham), her mother's sister and her husband, at a bad time, and it doesn't sit well with her cousin Abby (Hannah Gross), who greets her at first cordially, but with growing animosity. The rest is best pieced together by the viewer, but I will add that the style and substance evoke an overall sense of anomie and fragmentation.
This sounds like it could be austere and schematic, but the affecting, authentic performances from the first-time actors make these characters thoroughly authentic. Likewise the music underscores the emotional truths (the title of the film comes from a song by bard Bill Callahan). Kim and Bill are both musicians, and their eclectic, haunting numbers underscore the bits and pieces of their lives on display, and that's about as real as film like that can get.Peter Keough can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
New Kid On The Bloc
I spent the last two years in the Peace Corps in Eastern Europe and just committed to another year. Before my assignment, I was dating a decent guy, but I told him it was temporary. When I was home on leave this summer, it was evident he hadn't let the relationship go. I reiterated that I just wanted friendship, but when I was back in Europe he e-mailed, asking if I still love him. He's always been really supportive and even visited me in my first year, but I again told him I didn't have romantic feelings for him. He asked for time to get over us. I promised not to contact him until he contacted me. This month, after three months of silence, he messaged me saying he wanted to talk, but now he won't respond to my e-mails to set up a Skype date. I miss him terribly and wonder if I made a mistake ending it with him. Then again, I'm living in a culture where women my age are all married with two kids, and I'm getting a lot of pressure to get married. — Confused
Assuming you aren't willing or able to "date local," this guy is effectively the last man on earth for you, at least for a year. Yeah, sure, you could go on a dating site and pique some new guy's interest, but imagine the directions for the first date: "Hop a 16-hour transatlantic flight, take three buses, transfer to the local mule cart, and tell Szylblczlka to turn left at the second group of goats in the road."
Until recently, even with thousands of miles between you, this guy's been conveniently located: stuck on you. It sounds like you admire his good qualities — sort of in the way a great auntie appreciates her little grand-nephew's accomplishments in the macaroni arts. But, romance? Nuh-uh. Not feelin' it. Friendship only. And that's final. Well, sort of final. Because, while absence, punctuated by the occasional Skype chat, couldn't make the heart grow fonder, there's nothing that gins up feeling in a girl like the sudden and inexplicable disappearance of a guy after years of his tongue-dragging, tail-wagging, puppydog-like reliability.
Adding to this allure, you're the single lady surrounded by all these happy villager couples. This leads to you telling yourself that maybe you're only now recognizing the guy's wonderfulness, but what you're really saying is, "I don't particularly have feelings for him, but he's always had feelings for me, and I'm kinda lonely over here in Upper Eastern Wherever, where the milkmaid next door just got married at 14."
Paraphrasing Kant on how people shouldn't be treated as means to an end, "Don't be a user! That's, like, so bogue." Instead, engage in a truly humanitarian gesture — leave the guy alone so he can get you out of his system and go find somebody else. Ideally, she'll also "miss him terribly" when they're apart — but not simply because he's the one man she has contact with who lacks both a wife and the belief that pink No. 300 sandpaper doubles for White Cloud and a glass of warm water is the week's bath.
Casing Amy I'm a straight man who's become friends with two bona-fide, cardcarrying lesbians. One I met hiking and the other is a coworker. Dominique and Angelique (not their real names) are both very attractive. I consider each a good friend, have lunched with them, hugged them and met their respective unattractive partners (each of whom looks like a man). I know they are not interested in men, yet I continue to have prurient thoughts about them, and find this continuing attraction to gay women confusing. — Wrong Hots
Wait. You're a heterosexual man who has the hots for hot women who get it on with other women? Weird. And yet, there must be other men out there who feel as you do, considering the vast selection of videos titled "Hot Lesbian Action," and the paucity of titles like "Two Lesbian Soccer Moms Nuzzle On The Couch While Sharing A Bag Of Kale Chips." Guess what: You aren't attracted to gay women; you're attracted to extremely attractive women, some of whom happen to be gay. (Not surprisingly, when coming up with aliases for your friends, you reach for names that are more stripper than lady field hockey coach.) If you're content to remain a les-bro — a straight guy who's friends with lesbians — your lesbian friends can provide you with priceless benefits: unlimited insight into the bizarre thinking and behavior of women. Just be sure you always keep a firm grip on the bottom line: If they were into men, they'd be dating a man instead of a woman who kind of looks like one.
Got a problem? Write Amy Alkon, 171 Pier Ave, #280, Santa Monica, CA 90405, or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com (www.advicegoddess.com) © 2013 Amy Alkon Distributed by Creators.Com.


text:
PHOENIX -- It was a chilly but festive morning at the Jobing.com Arena today, as crews got busy installing the ice for the 2013-14 Phoenix Coyotes NHL season.
The ice isn't a year-round fixture, since it's too hot and expensive during the summer to keep the ice cold. "You're going to run up your energy bill just like at home," says Jim Foss, GM of Operations. "So you try to minimize those costs if you can."
The process of building up the ice takes several steps and layers. "We're gonna lay a thin layer of water on the ice here," he explains. "Then we'll come out and we'll paint white on top of it. It's a water-based paint. Then we'll slap some chalk lines on it where the red lines and the blue lines are."
The process, when it's finished, will have used about 10,000 gallons of water. Crew also use giant stencils to create sponsor logos on the finished ice.
The Coyotes keep the same ice all season long. "If we have a concert or a basketball game, we have a sub-floor," Foss says. "It's a fiberglass floor, and it goes right on top of the ice. And this ice stays in until we win the Stanley Cup."